Your house is lovely. I really don't like the waterline stone application. In your case I think it will throw the proportions and massing off. Looking at the drawing, do you need stone at all? I'm thinking it would look even better just using paint to highlight what you want to highlight.

If stone is essential to you, then I would stone the garage and front porch only...let the rest look like an add-on which will give the building some character. If that's not enough for you, then stone the narrow front gable too. But no more.

thanks for the responses! so do you think no stone at all would be better? what about just around the entire garage area only? there's a house somewhat similar to ours getting built a few miles from our lot and they left the area around the garage alone (only house wrap showing) while the rest of the exterior is finished. so we're assuming they will put stone there eventually. not sure how it will look, but we'll get to see that look before we need to decide for ours.

I'm voting no on stone.maybe around the garage and bottom of your porch column? Is it a costly upgrade? I wanted stone too but everyone thought it would take away from our design too. We spent the $ on quartz counters instead.

Stone is a strong traditional structural material that would be inappropriate floating in an upper story gable or over a garage door or stopping half way up a wall. Using such a strong material as a decorative accent would also be inappropriate.

Although the house is compact, it is full of arbitrary design ideas many of which are oddly out of scale with the house. It looks as if it had been larger and then reduced in area.

I would try to strengthen the basic design concept instead of adding decorative elements.

it depends on how much stone we're doing. it's probably going to cost somewhere around $3,500 (give or take a few hundred).

I vote no stone, unless it looks like the foundation only, which would be a very narrow band and probably hidden by landscaping if your yard is as flat as the picture.

I would vote no stone, or just on the front porch area to draw attention to that. I wouldn't do anything on the garage, as you don't want that to be the focal point.

I agree with no stone. I think the bump out gable should be reworked too. As it is, it's too big a focal point, IMO.

If you need the bumpout, I would get rid of the dutch gable/eyebrow over the window to the right of the bumpout and have both windows match, either with or without the arch detail. You want the front door to be the main focus of the front elevation, not a window over the garage, KWIM?

Another vote for no stone. I especially would avoid stone in any of the gables or garage. If you absolutely must have stone, another vote for only the porch area.

Love your house!

I think stone would look great- done correctly. I'd pick Porch and Garage- not sure if its worth the money on the waterline since it will disappear with landscaping and your house has a small amount of waterline. Halfway up the porch column may look good too.

Do you have an idea of the type of stone? Try photoshopping in the sample.

The windows look lovely, your house will be very bright and sunny.

thanks very much, nepool!

it's not definite, but we're thinking of doing maybe a drystack style. we pretty much want some stone, but not too much. our favorite before i posted this was doing the 3' (or even 2.5') waterline across the front, and then doing the entire front porch area.

but there are some good ideas here with the column and it seems the front porch area is the most recommended here (or not any stone at all).

thanks everyone for the suggestions so far! it means a lot!

What material will be on the rest of the house?

ChrisStewart: the house is going to be siding.

we have seen a few houses like ours within an hour drive or so that has the exterior with siding and some stone accents. we think those houses look very nice and we're hoping to do something similar.

the homes we saw usually ran stone 3' around the bottom and then in the entire front porch area. as i said, the new house going up a mile or so away looks to be doing stone only in the entire garage face area (not sure if i'd like that). i posted this to see if someone would recommend something different (and so far we are actually considering the pillar idea).

I agree with no stone above the garage (too heavy)

I would probably tend to go with no stone. The problem with modern stone veneers is they often look cheap and fake.

I have nothing against stone wainscot as long as it is nicely done (regardless of whether it is historically correct or not)

Here is one other idea.

yeah, we're about 99.9% that the option above the garage is out.

this picture you posted is actually very nice. i would have never of even thought about that! i'm going to have to run that by my other half and see.

is there any way that you can make a picture with the 3' going around the bottom (waterline look) and then fill in the front porch area completely?

if you can, i would so greatly appreciate it!!! seeing it this way can maybe make us change our mind...

like this?

yes, except instead of the whole area done in stone where the tall window is to the left, just do the 3' waterline look (like the garage has).

this was the look we originally liked, but if possible i'd like to see it with the way you're doing it because it really does give a great idea of how it would look.

thanks a ton ChrisStewart! i really appreciate your help in this.

all wainscot

thanks a bunch!!!

this picture above that you just did was one of the two we were considering. either this one or the same exact way but with the front door area done as well. we're not sure which would look better.

edit: so after looking at pics, I guess the stone wainscot is indeed the look we're after. i'm not too familiar with stone so i'm not good with the terms. so either that style, wainscot (like the picture), or the wainscot AND porch area completely done would be the two I think we're deciding between.

This post was edited by stblgt on Tue, Nov 19, 13 at 20:26

I still vote no stone, especially after seeing the waterline. It really does throw the proportions off. I think the house would look great with just board and batten siding.

Stone at the foundation level is appropriate. It generally gets hidden by landscaping though. Stone "wainscoting" partway up the side like an old man's pants over his belly and cinched at his nipples is not an authentic look to anything other than fake stone catalogs and builders trying to convince people it's "upscale", when it's not. It's emphasises how fake it is.

If you want something authentic, do the main body of the house in it, not the garage or gable, and not the bump to the left.

I can see that you really like the waterline, but it does look great to have the main body and porch in stone. So Chris's with the waterline garage and body to the left. (I can see the benefit, as the siding won't get wet with snow around the garage.) Or, does all stone make the garage blend in more, especially if the garage door is in the same color family as the stone or the siding above (NOT the trim color)

With a bold front door?

I like Chris Stewart's first house idea with the stone on the back area. I would not do stone anywhere else!
Cedar shakes would look nice in the gable .

Here's another one you mentioned, stone on porch and waterline elsewhere.

Another question: what kind of siding? In your original picture, it looks like vertical siding, which is a whole different look than horizontal; and what color?

bpathome: thanks a bunch for that picture above! that was the look we originally were looking at. i do love a bold front door. but, i'm not sure how bold. we orginally like the white and then were thinking maybe black? but we're back to white again. haha, i know neither are bold, so i guess maybe black is the boldest we'd do.

we're doing horizontal vinyl siding (double 4) in a dark gray.

how is everyone's opinion on the picture just posted above with the waterline/front porch area finished in stone?

hollysprings: when you say the main area, are you referring to the front porch and the area above the front porch roof?

This post was edited by stblgt on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 14:51

Personally I do not see that it makes any since to just have that one wall all stone and then change to wainscot when it makes each corner.

You like the wainscot, so I vote for ChrisStewart's picture with the left wall all stone and wainscot on the garage. It makes that tall window look fabulous! And makes that main part of the house strong in relation to the bedrooms and garage.The left side is shorter and recessed, it really does need the power of stone before it fades away altogether.

Dark grey siding will look nice :) For the door, go for a deeeeeep red, maybe. (I haven't learned how to adjust colors in Paint yet!) Black might kind of disappear, look like a black hole under the porch. If you do go with black or white, add some big planter pots.

the more I look at the pic above, the more I really like it.

so the wainscot would continue down the left side of the garage and then fill in the entire porch area, then do the wainscot again down the left side of the front door area and finish the stone off covering the entire tall window area? is that correct?

Well, from the front elevation I couldn't see that the front door is that far in front of the living room (it that the living room?) Is there a window in that side wall? I have no idea what it would look like, whether wainscot or fully clad. (If you wainscot the front of the garage you would do the side of the garage, as well.) Do you have an "angle" elevation you could paste the stone onto to see how it looks? Offhand, I think it would look odd to have it be full wall, wainscot, full wall, but a mock-up would be helpful. Ask the builder for a side or angle elevation?

yes, that is the living room where that tall window is. No there isn't a window on the side wall (just front and rear).

this pic is the only one I currently have and maybe it can give an idea of the way the walls will be.

This post was edited by stblgt on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 20:49

Oh, I see. Then this? I wish I knew how to change the siding to your grey (without redrawing all the little lines by hand!) With the wainscoting wrapping the entire front, including the front and left side of the garage and the front and left side of the foyer, then going high on the living room wall.

bpathome: that looks fantastic! it's a perfect mix! I think before it might have been a little too much stone then what we wanted, but still looked very nice. but this picture might be the perfect amount!

I really appreciate your help in doing all of this and while it's not grey, I can still get a very good idea on the way it would look.

how's everyone's opinion on this last picture?

It becomes a cost issue.

If it where not for cost I would vote on building the first floor with stone. Stopping stone at the corner accentuates that it is a thin veneer vs a real stone wall. Historically many building and even large churches applied decoration just to the front.

I usually return the stone around the corner at least 18" to give it the appearance of being thicker. In my first example I envisioned the front and side of the family room being stone to give it the appearance that an older original stone structure was added on to.

If you think back in time and try to find a clear logical reason why parts of this house might have been built of 2 entirely different kinds of construction systems (wood frame vs masonry), then you will have a much easier time deciding where to use those materials so they produce a sense of natural integrity and style rather than arbitrary decoration.

Modern construction systems make it possible to switch surface materials with little or no changes in the underlying structure so it is possible to use the materials in a cosmetic, decorative, even illogical manner. It's a trap inexperienced designers seem to be drawn to.

Stopping masonry before it reaches the second floor line or putting it above a very large opening with no visible means of support is a kind of architectural joke; such configurations would have collapsed during the era this house appears to be emulating.

If you are going to copy something you like, copy it well.

Edit to read, Oh, never mind.

This post was edited by bpathome on Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 20:13

ChrisStewart: you are indeed correct when you say it's a cost issue. we actually only have "x" amount budgeted and we really don't want to exceed that amount. we've always really, really liked the wainscot look for some reason. we've seen it on homes around us and think it looks very nice.

Renovator: I can understand exactly what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense and I appreciate your input. I know you're not too found of wainscoting on this home, but the last picture posted by bpathome seemed to be a nice combination of the look i was going after.

after posting this thread, i really have thought a lot about this subject and everyone's comments, and it is opening me up to different styles for this home and i appreciate everyone's help and helping me see the options that i would have never thought of by myself.

This post was edited by stblgt on Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 23:17

stblgt, you are going to love your home! Enjoy :)

thanks bpathome! and for all your help as well.

I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I have an opinion to share, too!

The stone ALL looks out of place to me. It looks as though you had a pile of stone, and so decided to go ahead and use it up on your new house.

But maybe it's simply a color issue - maybe the actual colors of your stone and siding will look more harmonious that these shown in the pictures above.

I am sorry to say, I don't like the waterline stone at all, even though I do see some houses around here using it as well. I particularly don't like it when the stone does not wrap around all four sides of the house. Just applying it to the front is what I've seen done in new builds around here, and it just does not look right to me. If you read the book: What Not to Build" they warn against just applying a cladding on the front and stopping it at the sides.

I would vote for no stone and upgrading the siding to something other than vinyl (board and batten maybe?).

I will say, I am not a designer, so my opinion should not be trusted as much as some expert posters above. However, my opinion does come from books I have read and from reading the opinions of many designers/architects on this board.

I hope you don't rush into this decision and whatever you decide makes you happy.

Best of luck.

Carol

I've already said that I think the best look for your house is board and batten and no stone. The last pic has actually reinforced my opinion. I'd sure want to save that money and put it on interior finishes where I spend most of my time.